What is art?

Originally posted by rwingett
You are confusing the nature of art with my self-centered and self-serving writing style.

My point is that no one can impose any definition of art upon the artist. It is the artist, in the act of creating, who determines what art is. Can a urinal be art? It is if Marcel Duchamp says it is. No one has a right to tell the artist that 'x' cannot be conside ...[text shortened]... een stunted if artists listened to people's opinions on what the proper definition of art is?

Perhaps there needs to be a distinction made between proposing something as art and it truly being art. I believe that you are talking about the former. So yes, anyone can call themselves an artist and produce something that they think is art and they can propose it as art. But does this make it so?

In the case of Duchamp, I get the impression that what he was doing was demonstrating the idea that lines that are pleasing to the eye can be found in everyday objects if the perspective and the context of the object is optimized. This demonstrates a deep understanding of line, perspective and context as well as a deep understanding of the beauty of an idea.

Now I could propose my keyboard as "art" without any of the above understanding. Is it truly art?

Originally posted by Nordlys
A child for example. Or an amateur artist (who wouldn't think of xymself as an artist either, of course) who may consider xyr art as just playing around a bit, maybe without any intentions to share it with others.

That is an interesting point. But I think it comes down to established convention. If your two examples are working in styles that have been done previously by 'self-conscious' artists then they would necessarily be considered art. If they are working in styles that have not previously been considered art, then they are unlikely to be recognized as such. It is the self-conscious artists who are continually setting and re-defining the parameters. They may widen those parameters to include something that previously had not been considered art. Then you will find some past craftsman whose work is elevated to the status of art after his death.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Perhaps there needs to be a distinction made between proposing something as art and it truly being art. I believe that you are talking about the former. So yes, anyone can call themselves an artist and produce something that they think is art and they can propose it as art. But does this make it so?

In the case of Duchamp, I get the impression that wh ...[text shortened]... I could propose my keyboard as "art" without any of the above understanding. Is it truly art?

You act as though there is some objective standard to go by. Can anything be "truly" considered art? I agree with you, though, that you have to be able to defend your assertion that something is art. You can't just proclaim it to be so without telling us why. But I think your obsession with "deep understanding" is off the mark. Art need not be particularly deep.

Originally posted by rwingett
You act as though there is some objective standard to go by. Can anything be "truly" considered art? I agree with you, though, that you have to be able to defend your assertion that something is art. You can't just proclaim it to be so without telling us why. But I think your obsession with "deep understanding" is off the mark. Art need not be particularly deep.

What are they demonstrating when they "defend [their] assertion that something is art"? What are they demonstrating when they "tell us why"? Does it matter what they say or is any "defense" acceptable?

Originally posted by rwingett
That is an interesting point. But I think it comes down to established convention. If your two examples are working in styles that have been done previously by 'self-conscious' artists then they would necessarily be considered art. If they are working in styles that have not previously been considered art, then they are unlikely to be recognized as such. It ...[text shortened]... you will find some past craftsman whose work is elevated to the status of art after his death.

I am not so sure about this part: "If they are working in styles that have not previously been considered art, then they are unlikely to be recognized as such." I don't think it's unlikely that a creative viewer/listener (who may well be an artist xymself) will recognise it as art, even though this will usually not lead to it being recognised widely as art - although it might if the person first recognising it as art happens to be an artist who starts making use of this style, thus turning it into an established convention; or if the person recognising it as art decides to publish the material as art in some way (e.g. organising an exhibition or writing a paper about it).

Art is human expression, transmission of culture, the sharing of experiences, ideas, feelings, and the mind. I suppose that sort of makes it everything.

But what makes good art? If we can "solve" these questions, then what?
Does it die? Does it stagnate? Is there any reason left to explore?

I create because I'm still trying to understand it. If I ever do, if the questions ever cease, I suspect it'll be over for me.

I'm not implying this question isn't worth exploring, far from it. But maybe the question itself is the answer. Perhaps art is a giant question, an attempt to understand ourselves. our universe, the big mystery.

Just another thought, cheers.

Art is entirely in the eyes of the individual.... Hence people having different opinions on the same piece of art. to take a famous example Jackson Pollux.

Here's one definition (not a very good one but its for the point)
Art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, or to otherwise make a statement.

Whats beautiful to you and me probably differs greatly... And whats beautiful to an artist isn't necessarily beautiful to the world. As far as I can see a good artist will never create for the sake of anyone but themselves.....

Originally posted by xnomanx
But maybe the question itself is the answer. Perhaps art is a giant question, an attempt to understand ourselves. our universe, the big mystery.

This is largely where I was trying to go. For me what separates "art" from "craft" are those works that provide some of those answers. The greatest artists repeatedly and often consistently do so. I believe they can do so, because they understand things that the vast majority don't - even amongst their own peers.

Originally posted by Mexico
Art is entirely in the eyes of the individual.... Hence people having different opinions on the same piece of art. to take a famous example Jackson Pollux.

Here's one definition (not a very good one but its for the point)
Art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sens ...[text shortened]... As far as I can see a good artist will never create for the sake of anyone but themselves.....

Art is aesthetic > everything is aesthetic > everything is art.

Even the mushroom cloud from the explosion of a nuclear bomb is aesthic. Dat's what i think!

Granny.

Originally posted by Mexico
Art is entirely in the eyes of the individual.... Hence people having different opinions on the same piece of art. to take a famous example Jackson Pollux.

Here's one definition (not a very good one but its for the point)
Art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sens ...[text shortened]... As far as I can see a good artist will never create for the sake of anyone but themselves.....

I believe that great works of art are innately great. If an individual cannot see the greatness, it's because he doesn't have the background to be able to appreciate it. It's because the viewer is limited, not the work. So many people don't seem to realize that it's incumbent on them to familiarize themselves with the idiom. So many people seem to believe that they were innately born with sufficient understanding to be able to judge all forms of art.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I believe that great works of art are innately great. If an individual cannot see the greatness, it's because he doesn't have the background to be able to appreciate it. It's because the viewer is limited, not the work. So many people don't seem to realize that it's incumbent on them to familiarize themselves with the idiom. So many people seem to believe ...[text shortened]... they were innately born with sufficient understanding to be able to judge all forms of art.

The thing is that art is created by people, so if anything the depth of understanding required to understand the art is only as deep as depth the artist him(her)self went to when creating said piece. Many people read too much into the content of works of art and fail to appreciate it for what it is; the artist expressing him(her)self in a way that pleases them.
For example all the works of Shakesphere have been analyzed and analyzed and interpreted and reinterpreted and taken to great depths of meaning. When actually it's quite possible that some of his sonnets, and lighter plays we're written solely for his own pleasure and amusement.... Or to entertain the crowd he knew would be watching his plays.....

Originally posted by Mexico
The thing is that art is created by people, so if anything the depth of understanding required to understand the art is only as deep as depth the artist him(her)self went to when creating said piece. Many people read too much into the content of works of art and fail to appreciate it for what it is; the artist expressing him(her)self in a way that pleases the ...[text shortened]... pleasure and amusement.... Or to entertain the crowd he knew would be watching his plays.....

"The thing is that art is created by people, so if anything the depth of understanding required to understand the art is only as deep as depth the artist him(her)self went to when creating said piece"
In great works of art the depth of understanding required is not only absent in the general population, but also absent amongst the artist's peers. Also, the depth of understanding required to have an appreciation can be and usually is less than the understanding required to create it.

"Many people read too much into the content of works of art and fail to appreciate it for what it is; the artist expressing him(her)self in a way that pleases them."
Spoken like someone who has little appreciation for great artists. Why do you sell them so short?

"For example all the works of Shakesphere have been analyzed and analyzed and interpreted and reinterpreted ...
Sure, often there are those who try to assign meaning to things when nothing is there or even misinterpret the work completely. This in no way alters the greatness of a great work of art, though it may alter the way it is perceived.

How am I selling an artist short, thats exactly what they do, why else would they do it. All art is, is expression of thought through whatever the artist chooses as a medium.

Artists don't set out to generate great works, they simply express themselves, then other people for some reason, assign a moral, aesthetic or other value to these expressions.

Originally posted by Mexico
How am I selling an artist short, thats exactly what they do, why else would they do it. All art is, is expression of thought through whatever the artist chooses as a medium.

Artists don't set out to generate great works, they simply express themselves, then other people for some reason, assign a moral, aesthetic or other value to these expressions.

You have to ask? Maybe it just strikes me wrong.

Let me ask you this. How would you take, "All science is, is expression of thought through whatever the scientist chooses as a medium. Scientists don't set out to generate great works, they simply express themselves, then other people for some reason, assign a moral, aesthetic or other value to these expressions"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You have to ask? Maybe it just strikes me wrong.

Let me ask you this. How would you take, "All science is, is expression of thought through whatever the scientist chooses as a medium. Scientists don't set out to generate great works, they simply express themselves, then other people for some reason, assign a moral, aesthetic or other value to these expressions"?

Don't get me wrong here, you seem to think I place little value on art. The point I making here is that an artist is simply expressing themselves, thus any value, aesthetic or otherwise, that we place on it is false because you cannot value someones expressions. Thus the only value art has is in the eyes of the individual who will either identify with that expression or not.
Great works are works that a greater number of people Identify with.

Your analogy with science is flawed because science is based in testable reproducible, phenomena. There is no ambiguity or expression involved.